News Carlton parts ways with Cain Liddle - Post #400

[HARKER]

Liddle wanted Ellis. How is Ellis performing currently? IMHO - he looks slow and is a butcher of pill. For the money and years, no thanks.
Liddle got us Moore. How is that going? IMO - wasted list spot and called it back then as well.

Liddle needs to stick his flowering nose out of list management, else we will be talking about him, like we have the Malthouse years.

Liddle wanted those players? Liddle only?
Not Agresta, Lloyd nor Teague, but Liddle and Liddle alone?

It's a real stretch to suggest that Liddle, had his hands over this without involvement of others.
I know there are 'insiders' who may have suggested this to be the case, but I'd suggest there may have been a little bias involved.

If Liddle set out to orchestrate these moves without the OK from others, he must have surely put plenty of noses out of joint and more so than anything SOS could have done, given their specific roles.

I don't know how anyone could peddle these situations as 'facts' without at least a modicum of insight. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[Michael Jezz]

I don't like being lumped in as someone who is critical of Liddle for every tiny thing. When it comes to the SOS sacking, the case against SOS and the case against Liddle both come from speculation and 'inside information'.

I fell on the side of SOS for one large simple reason and one minor reason. The latter being his status at the club and in my life as a supporter. the former being the job he had done. I felt he had done an incredible job with the currency he had, done very well in the draft, and he was genius like negotiating trade deals. He failed bringing in most DFAs, but I understood why he did it for the most part.

If he was the boss with the ultimate say, then fair enough I say. His job depended on his selections so he had every right to choose his own success or his own demise. The club had let him have his way. Trigg supported him as CEO, McKay supported him as Football Manager.

It was the perfect storm against SOS. Liddle comes in and gets Agresta to the club. I assumed it would be to help identify bargain picks and rookies, as Sydney had done when he was there under Beatson. Lloyd comes in and gels with Liddle and Agresta. I note that Lloyd's brother had bad blood with SOS in the media so I do have to wonder if there was any pre-determined will to humble SOS a little. The notion that SOS ran the club had been floated by Caroline Wilson who Matt Lloyd worked with.

On the surface, the newly arrived trio wanted a consultative approach to list management. Lloyd and Agresta having worked in those areas at Fremantle and Sydney previously. I'm not sure what systems those clubs had in place but I can see Kinnear Beatson having the final say at Sydney also. Liddle wouldn't have been involved in List Management at Richmond while he was doing Memberships and Marketing stuff so the implementation of a sub-committee seemed to be trying to fix something that wasn't broken, and taking away from SOS's ability to ensure his own job through his own decision making.

People can say the above is speculation but the nuts and bolts are there in terms of when things changed and what those changes would have affected.

I think SOS had earned the right to fail, quite simply.

Of course we don't know how the revamped team will perform going forward. Austin is quiet, so we haven't picked up any real insight yet. If they do well, that doesn't necessarily justify what happened because SOS had done well. I guess it will relieve some angst about undoing what had been done, which is a fear of mine right now.

I felt assured when I saw SOS talk. I knew he had our best interests at heart and that wasn't just about his job because he bleeds navy blue. I liked the vibe around the club when Trigg, SOS and Bolton changed the culture. MLG is the only person left from those culture changing times and he was the least inspiring of them. I feel like he could be talked around by any good talker and football person.

Liddle had never been a CEO before. He was a membership guy who impressed with his alternative revenue ideas. I feel he has found a way to tap into some of the latent memberships and the 2020 disaster has prevented further significant improvement. Opinion reserved on this as we do need to grow that tally by a heap more relative to other clubs.

I don't know how the club is functioning otherwise. So much is a wait and see.

Of course, we were lied to about the conflict of interest. Any suggestion of internal division would have reflected poorly on all of them.

Balanced, well expressed post. I would just add, it I find it biased and naive when Liddle supporters put forth the view that he is not very involved in recruiting when he sacked SoS, references recruiting in his media and a mountain of evidence of his trade preferences. It is like the Ratten Lovers who criticise Malthouse for Robinson and Betts and don't reference Jacobs, Grigg and Fevola. I just find it unbalanced, more so when SoS is blamed for butler after having Betts imposed upon him when there was probably one position for a small forward. Liddle might work out but we will not know his impact on recruiting for 4 years

 

[Michael Jezz]

Liddle wanted those players? Liddle only?
Not Agresta, Lloyd nor Teague, but Liddle and Liddle alone?

It's a real stretch to suggest that Liddle, had his hands over this without involvement of others.
I know there are 'insiders' who may have suggested this to be the case, but I'd suggest there may have been a little bias involved.

If Liddle set out to orchestrate these moves without the OK from others, he must have surely put plenty of noses out of joint and more so than anything SOS could have done, given their specific roles.

I don't know how anyone could peddle these situations as 'facts' without at least a modicum of insight. It just doesn't make sense.

Come on join the dots. Facts that stand up in a court of law, we don't have. Clearly, when you sack the guy that makes the moves- you are orchestrating. Your arguement is akin to saying a mob boss does not pull the trigger, so he does not make hits

 

[HARKER]

Come on join the dots. Facts that stand up in a court of law, we don't have. Clearly, when you sack the guy that makes the moves- you are orchestrating. Your arguement is akin to saying a mob boss does not pull the trigger, so he does not make hits

Here are some dots for you, that I know -

1. MLG and Mathieson didn't want to see SOS ousted.
2. It wasn't just Liddle. It was Teague, Agretsa and Lloyd who had issues dealing with SOS. Someone though had to be the mouthpiece.
3. There is one other factor involved but that may or may not be true and I won't be airing it here, nor anywhere.

I didn't want to see SOS leave, but understand that we couldn't move on all and sundry because of one individual. I've put this forward many times before.
SOS had his friends and he had his 'enemies' He wasn't the easiest person to get along with and isn't to this day. It's his nature.

To think that Liddle went against the whole football department is possible, but then it shouldn't have been possible for him to remain.
For that to have been the case, we have much bigger issues than anyone can imagine...Imagine that.

 

[SurreyBlue]

2. It wasn't just Liddle. It was Teague, Agretsa and Lloyd who had issues dealing with SOS. Someone though had to be the mouthpiece.

No argument here. Nothing to do with who wanted to bring in who though.

 

[WalshistheGOAT]

Here's my issue: how much of this do we actually know as fact?

Impossible to know if any of its fact because the current journo's in the AFL space are borderline impossible to trust as they consistently get just about every story they print wrong or backflip 6 times before settling on a story

 

[HARKER]

No argument here. Nothing to do with who wanted to bring in who though.

OK. I don't know the machinations around that but if you do, please let us know.

How did he sell the idea of 'his guys' to the rest? Genuine question.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Reece Withoutherspoon?

Without a shovel

 

[SurreyBlue]

OK. I don't know the machinations around that but if you do, please let us know.

How did he sell the idea of 'his guys' to the rest? Genuine question.

You keep prompting ao I will answer, hopefully for the last time again, although I do believe you know more then you are letting on.

The board could not afford to have a ‘just hired’ disgruntled CEO, so had to let him make the appropriate move. Their hands were tied, so to speak.

The ‘football department’ led strongly by Mr Lloyd, finally had someone who could stand up for them with some power and more importantly the right time, to help them. Accordingly, this allowed the CEO to make some calls on certain matters that didn’t fall under his umbrella after the help which in lay mans term the football department ‘owed him’.

All I will add from here is, let’s hope Austin isn’t a ‘yes’ man, else we are in for some true pain. Time will tell and definitely time to move on and let’s hope Liddle stays within the parameters of his role.

 

[HARKER]

You keep prompting ao I will answer, hopefully for the last time again, although I do believe you know more then you are letting on.

The board could not afford to have a ‘just hired’ disgruntled CEO, so had to let him make the appropriate move. Their hands were tied, so to speak.

The ‘football department’ led strongly by Mr Lloyd, finally had someone who could stand up for them with some power and more importantly the right time, to help them. Accordingly, this allowed the CEO to make some calls on certain matters that didn’t fall under his umbrella after the help which in lay mans term the football department ‘owed him’.

All I will add from here is, let’s hope Austin isn’t a ‘yes’ man, else we are in for some true pain. Time will tell and definitely time to move on and let’s hope Liddle stays within the parameters of his role.

Thanks for that.

That's right. To have moved on Liddle would have been a terrible look for the club. That idea had to come off the table.

A couple of things that stand to absolute reason is; 1. Everybody wants to rule the world 2. Everybody wants to be a Recruiter

There were many moving parts through what went down and some were pretty ugly and set out to be so.
For me it's always been the case of poor culture and direction (some will say mismanagement) for such a situation to have come about....but here we are.

 

[Michael Jezz]

Here are some dots for you, that I know -

1. MLG and Mathieson didn't want to see SOS ousted.
2. It wasn't just Liddle. It was Teague, Agretsa and Lloyd who had issues dealing with SOS. Someone though had to be the mouthpiece.
3. There is one other factor involved but that may or may not be true and I won't be airing it here, nor anywhere.

I didn't want to see SOS leave, but understand that we couldn't move on all and sundry because of one individual. I've put this forward many times before.
SOS had his friends and he had his 'enemies' He wasn't the easiest person to get along with and isn't to this day. It's his nature.

To think that Liddle went against the whole football department is possible, but then it shouldn't have been possible for him to remain.
For that to have been the case, we have much bigger issues than anyone can imagine...Imagine that.

Well then MLG is not strong enough to sort things out-weak link. I also don't want a plethora of nice guys at Carlton. If he rubbed Teague up the wrong way, perhaps consider that the leader with 2 premierships, builder of last years grandfinal list knows what it takes. Progress is the vehicle of the unreasonable man-Time to move on

 

[Opine]

I'll wait patiently.

 

[Ricky Mott]

Here are some dots for you, that I know -

1. MLG and Mathieson didn't want to see SOS ousted.
2. It wasn't just Liddle. It was Teague, Agretsa and Lloyd who had issues dealing with SOS. Someone though had to be the mouthpiece.
3. There is one other factor involved but that may or may not be true and I won't be airing it here, nor anywhere.

I didn't want to see SOS leave, but understand that we couldn't move on all and sundry because of one individual. I've put this forward many times before.
SOS had his friends and he had his 'enemies' He wasn't the easiest person to get along with and isn't to this day. It's his nature.

To think that Liddle went against the whole football department is possible, but then it shouldn't have been possible for him to remain.
For that to have been the case, we have much bigger issues than anyone can imagine...Imagine that.

It’s incredible to think that the clubs press release was about SOS conflict of interest. Yet Cain has two best mates in Lloyd and Agresta working at the club but no conflict. I guess that’s nepotism.

 

[Opine]

For all the detailed and varied opinions on the why's, how's, when's, what if's, etc, I think there is a fundamental value that's been breached; at least as far as I'm concerned as a supporter. I was sold the value of being patient and to trust the process undertaken by the club; that patience and trust was manifested, not to an insignificant degree, in SOS. The club did a fantastic job communicating the value of that process; at least s far as I was concerned. I believed in that process; why wouldn't I, how couldn't I, our LM kept proving himself. Then we're presented with what I personally opine as nonsense; the conflict of interest reasoning for refusal to reappoint SOS when he was performing extremely well. AFAIC, I no longer trust the club or it's messaging. So I'll wait for a changing of the guard at presidential and executive levels.

 

[DangerousD]

I'm not sure where the idea that Liddle tried to bring in Butler came from. The only contention on Butler was SOS saying we were looking at other players and Agresta saying we were still looking at Butler.

Somehow this has become a Liddle idea and a SOS failure. I'm not sure where that narrative sprung from.

What did you read in to those comments? It was strange at the time, oneguy saying no and an other saying yes.

 

[DangerousD]

Here's my issue: how much of this do we actually know as fact?

None

 

[Opine]

What did you read in to those comments? It was strange at the time, oneguy saying no and an other saying yes.

I think you’re purposely splitting hairs over irrelevant issues. I think the main issue is a breach of trust; and I believe its effect will eventually curb membership growth unless he departs.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

What did you read in to those comments? It was strange at the time, oneguy saying no and an other saying yes.

I read into it that they had considered Butler, that Agresta thought he was still on the table, whilst SOS had made a final decision that he was moving on.

In hindsight, the sub-committee may have had him as a possibility, while SOS overruled them. I understand why ... with Papley and Martin as targets and Betts coming back.

 

[DangerousD]

I think you’re purposely splitting hairs over irrelevant issues. I think the main issue is a breach of trust; and I believe its effect will eventually curb membership growth unless he departs.

As you mentioned to me yesterday in regards to something similar, aren’t we all just splitting hairs here? I am discussing something that showed a disconnect at the time within the recruiting department and asking a posters opinion on how they perceived it. I didn’t think it looked good at the time, not for the fact that members of the team disagree on targets, that it seems to play out in public.

Whilst you know my position regarding Liddle or you sort of do and I disagree with a lot of posters opinion on him and what happened, what I dislike more is this trend or call it what you will, of posters attributing players names to certain staff members, claiming player A was Liddle pick and player B was Agresta“s and SOS”s guy was placer C, it’s crap and most of the combinations being thrown up have changed since trade time last year as Butler has proven to be quite a pick up.

 

[DangerousD]

I read into it that they had considered Butler, that Agresta thought he was still on the table, whilst SOS had made a final decision that he was moving on.

In hindsight, the sub-committee may have had him as a possibility, while SOS overruled them. I understand why ... with Papley and Martin as targets and Betts coming back.

I to am happy that we prioritised the quality addition at the risk of missing out on a Butler, he has been good and I would have liked him, but I understand the thought process and am happy with what we did.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

I to am happy that we prioritised the quality addition at the risk of missing out on a Butler, he has been good and I would have liked him, but I understand the thought process and am happy with what we did.

I think that's all we can do when it comes to recruiting. Look at our needs, our targets, our age profile, list balance and our currency.

Seeing something do well at another club after the fact, and calling it a mistake is just a hindsight call. He could be a one year wonder. I'd call it more of Richmond's mistake than ours as they let him go.

 

[Opine]

As you mentioned to me yesterday in regards to something similar, aren’t we all just splitting hairs here? I am discussing something that showed a disconnect at the time within the recruiting department and asking a posters opinion on how they perceived it. I didn’t think it looked good at the time, not for the fact that members of the team disagree on targets, that it seems to play out in public.

Whilst you know my position regarding Liddle or you sort of do and I disagree with a lot of posters opinion on him and what happened, what I dislike more is this trend or call it what you will, of posters attributing players names to certain staff members, claiming player A was Liddle pick and player B was Agresta“s and SOS”s guy was placer C, it’s crap and most of the combinations being thrown up have changed since trade time last year as Butler has proven to be quite a pick up.

I’m assuming you’ve been a CFC supporter for at least some period prior to his appointment: on that basis were you sold on the club’s messaging and direction regarding its rebuild?

 

[Brackets]

I'm not sure where the idea that Liddle tried to bring in Butler came from. The only contention on Butler was SOS saying we were looking at other players and Agresta saying we were still looking at Butler.

Somehow this has become a Liddle idea and a SOS failure. I'm not sure where that narrative sprung from.

Yet you've been willing to pose the suggestion that Moore was likely Liddle's doing, based on even less of a connection.

Your initial post fits no less in the fantasy column than what you labeled as such, until evidence shows otherwise. I don't mean that as a criticism, as I don't thinks it's a topic that lends itself to rational debate. There's a lot of guesswork and assumptions occurring either side of the ledger.

I'm not glad SOS is gone but I think on reflection it was time. As much as we all 'know' what a great job SOS done, we're starting to see the holes we could previously ignore due to the rebuild phase. Given it's now year 5, personally I'm at a point where I'd like to see us sit in the top 10 for longer than a week, before I push any further claims of SOSs brilliance. Equally ill reserve judgement on Liddle until the full impact of any decisions or direction is known.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Yet you've been willing to pose the suggestion that Moore was likely Liddle's doing, based on even less of a connection.

Your initial post fits no less in the fantasy column than what you labeled as such, until evidence shows otherwise. I don't mean that as a criticism, as I don't thinks it's a topic that lends itself to rational debate. There's a lot of guesswork and assumptions occurring either side of the ledger.

I'm not glad SOS is gone but I think on reflection it was time. As much as we all 'know' what a great job SOS done, we're starting to see the holes we could previously ignore due to the rebuild phase. Given it's now year 5, personally I'm at a point where I'd like to see us sit in the top 10 for longer than a week, before I push any further claims of SOSs brilliance. Equally ill reserve judgement on Liddle until the full impact of any decisions or direction is known.

I hardly think my suggestion that Liddle had something to do with more is equivalent to a post deliberately full of poetic licence and embellishment. You probably didn't need to go there.

Moore had no AFL form and average VFL form when he showed up at the club. I know he played with the junior club that Liddle has had plenty to do with. It's not as though my belief is far fetched.

 

[Brackets]

I to am happy that we prioritised the quality addition at the risk of missing out on a Butler, he has been good and I would have liked him, but I understand the thought process and am happy with what we did.

How many good additions have we missed out on though in prioritising the best quality on offer, only to fail and end up with the lowest quality left over as DFA etc.

In the wash up it was rather apparent how unlikely Papley was, and while it is commendable we got him to request us publicly, both are AA level for opposition while we continue to play Cuningham and Gibbons in the role.

Butler in isolation doesn't bother me. But we've wasted a lot of resources on failed attempts, and in turn the chance to add incremental improvement across the park that may have added up to that top quality and more.